When you think of news networks taking aim at science, CNN is not usually the network that comes to mind. But on August 7, CNN.com put up a questionable poll:
"Is the Curiosity rover mission to Mars worth its $2.6 billion price tag?"
Of course the answer to the question is yes. It's a no-brainer. But this poll puts into question CNN's integrity. CNN isn't saying that landing on Mars isn't worth the cost; they are just asking the question, right? Wrong. In this case the question is misleading. We see a large sum of money -- in this case $2.6 billion -- and we think to ourselves, "That's a lot of money; I'll never make that much money."
The $2.6 billion is a misleading figure. According to spacenews.com:
"The price tag, also known as the life cycle cost, includes five years of development, the nine months MSL will spend en route to Mars, and two years of surface operations plus data analysis."
That's $2.6 billion over the course of nearly 8 years. That's about $325 million a year. It is practically nothing compared with other government spending. The amount of money spent on Curiosity's development, flight, and two year mission is the amount of money that the Department of Defense spends every 36 hours. Why hasn't CNN asked if the $670.9 billion a year in defense spending is worth the price tag? How come they didn't ask about the $15 billion a year on the failed war on drugs? They could play this game with nearly any government program but they chose to present a misleading figure and focus their question on the small amount spent on space science rather than on any of the actual wasteful spending that is going on in Washington.
For the price of a little over a week in Afghanistan ($300 million a day), NASA has reignited interest in science, math, engineering, and a host of other disciplines. All practical aspects of Curiosity's mission aside (and there are many), this alone makes the cost well worth it. Just imagine what NASA could do if instead of getting $2.6 billion over the course of eight years, they got an extra $2.6 billion every year or had just a fraction of the Defense budget.
The poll question that CNN posed robs us of our future. By calling into question the cost of science with misleading numbers and without the proper context, CNN is turning the public off to science and science education. CNN is quite literally turning the public against curiosity.
Read more about why space science is important in Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Follow Staks Rosch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DangerousTalk
"Would you rather that we spend $300 million to maintain our presence in Afghanistan for one, solitary day, or would you rather we spend $365 million to fund the operation of Curiosity on the planet Mars for one entire year?"
And I dont buy the argument any longer new technology will come from this research and this will not economically benefit Americans. Hello we don't make things anymore. Anything new will be made somewhere else.
Regarding just the science learned from it, again... let another nation do it and we can read about it learning exactly what we are learning now... much less expensive. Too many Americans are in poverty to spending on this stuff. Not to mention all the huge problems.
I was a CNN junkie for years. Then, in '95, it morphed into the all-OJ-all-the-time network and never recovered and now occupies the bottom tier of so-called news networks. At least Fox is sometimes unintentionally humorous. Now I couldn't even tell you what channel it's on.
:-)
Sad.
they don't do stories well anymore.. and may shake the etch a sketch to emulate fox.
Otherwise I am agreeing with you. The political reality is that space research is a by-product of the military-industrial complex and the militarization of space. Everybody who participates in this research knows this. The national air and space museum in Washington is a wonderful example of that... a stunning exhibit that protrays this reality by placing manned spacecraft right next to ICBMs and military hardware.
Or to put the best possible spin on it, MSL/Curiosity only costs each American less than $1.05 per year. Tell me THAT isn't worth it...
:-)
http://www.sloshspot.com/blog/10-09-2008/The-Year-in-Beer-Beer-Drinking-in-America-by-Volume-64
Wow! That's a lot of beer we could buy! At least 12 cases.
This is why CNN sucks. Bernie Shaw must wince every time he sees it.
Why pick on space science? Because it's in the news! We have decades of public opinion polling on defense spending, and its not that interesting of a topic. This poll question was meant for a fluff piece.
My biggest beaf with your piece, however, is your assumption that Americans are idiots. Even if they don't know how much we spend on particular projects, they certainly know that we are in debt to the tune of many trillions, and can make the logical inference that the $2.6 billion isn't the direct cause of our deficit.
But even if they did -- so what? Nobody votes for one candidate over another based on their NASA budgetary stance. Small issues like these are why we elect politicians to make these decisions, rather than holding referenda -- the average ley person isn't apprised of the necessary information to weigh the costs and benefits, so they put their trust in someone who can dedicate the time necessary to make the decision appropriately.
Who is talking about politics? I'm talking about turning people off to science.
The Mars Rover is in the news and CNN is a news station. CNN has a responsibility to inform the public. They should have started by accurately telling the public how little the Mars Rover actually costs compared to other government programs. But they didn't. Instead, they made it seem like it was a larger sum of money and they didn't put that sum in the context of other government spending programs. This leads people (at least 30% at last viewing) to think that it was too expensive when it was actually dirt cheap.